Skip to main content

Blog Post 2

In chapter 3, the authors discuss what makes a sensible argument.  They state that sensible arguments are based on good reasoning because good reasoning helps to support claims through the use of standard patterns of inference.  Also, they express that sensible arguments are consistent and are non-contradictory. The authors also further discuss that sensible arguments can be enhanced by a good story, scientific argumentation, feminist theory, or alternative dispute resolution.  I found the information about good stories to be the most interesting because often times I can be persuaded in an argument based on how good or bad a story is.  The authors say that stories have the ability to construct a reality for those who tell them and those who listen to them. Good stories help listeners critique how truthful a story is based on human behavior in relation to what actions make sense.  Good stories are also coherent and help listeners decipher whether or not an argument is sensible based on its coherency. It is also stated that narratives lead to an outcome through the use of chronological order and a central subject, and when they are coherently developed.  The book also says that by the end of the twentieth century, many scholars in social sciences believed that narratives provided good data for research.  It is also believed that narratives help people understand their own lives, help mediate arguments, and are impactful in making connections with appropriate decision makers.  

As previously stated, I believe that a story can persuade me when engaging in an argument based on how good and coherent it is.  I also feel that how well the speaker tells the story changes my perspective on the argument because if a speaker is engaging with me and being enthusiastic, I am more likely to side with that person in an argument over someone who is disinterested. Additionally, I found the concept of a good story aiding a sensible argument to be interesting because we all frequently tell and listen to stories and stories are a part of our everyday lives.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more